insurance plan that removes the administration. that is what the government will provide. [ applause ] >> glenn: good night america. good night mrs. du@@úú >> this week on the journal editorial report. the war on terror comes home again. lessons from the fort hood massacre and the obama administration says the master mind of 9/11 to stand trial in, believe it or not, a new york criminal court and health care reform and the abortion uproar, is the stupak amendment really a pro-life victory and how big a role will the issue play in the senate debate to come. plus, bailouts for newspapers? why your favorite daily may soon be getting a helping hand from the government. welcome to the journal editorial

report, i'm paul gigot. reporting that they will charge fort hood shooting suspect with 13 counts of premeditated murder. investigators trying to piece together the circumstances surrounding the texas million the base and whether key warning signs were ignored. including e-mail exchanges between hasan and a radical cleric in yemen who knew three of the september 11th hijackers and advocated jihad against the united states. and in a stunning change in the legal war on terror, the obama administration announced we'll try the master mind of 9/11, kalid shaikh mohammed and four others from guantanamo in a court in new york city. what's behind this decision and is it possible they will be acquitted? joining us columnist dan ettinger, editorial board member, dorothy rabid wits.

>> everything in his life, that pointed to this, he said outrageous things at long lectures and the response was we have to let him do his things. >> at walter reed hospital. >> at walter reed and people sent him to of all things, school. they sent him to a university lecture place, he would be responsible to this. he carried a card that said soldier of islam we now discover. he-- >> people are seeing all of this. why didn't anybody blow the whistle? >> look, what's really happened is americans are not going to forget this happened. cowardess prevented anyone from interfering, the only word to use, drop political correctness. >> cowardess on who's part? >> on the part of the military

and all of his superiors. you could not say-- there's a woman in charge that wouldn't give her name to a reporter, who said, you know, we cannot simply allow people who are different to be picked on. now, that difference-- >> that's political correctness and diverse ideology, i guess. >> those are thewords, but the real aenmating feeling is cowardess. you could be written up for insensitivity. the general of the army who could sit there and say-- >> general casy. >> general casey, this is cowardess, this is something, it's army policy and one of the things that has happened very unlike september 11th aftermath. where you didn't really know everyone was paralyzed. what you really had here was the sharp laser focus on cowardess and the omission of the necessary steps. >> well, let me try to, shall we say extend dorothy's remarks beyond cowardess. i would say it's more confusion. you know, if we're going to talk

about ksm here in a minute and clearly the country is about to embark on a huge fight over whether it's appropriate to try him in new york or not. look, the people, we've had the same fight over the war on terror since the day it started and we passed the patriotic act seven years ago. you recall that, for instance, electronic surveillance, the foreign intelligence surveillance act, that was fought in the courts over what the scope of it should be. if you're an army or cia or fbi analyst and your job is to monitor hasan's call to an imam at yemen. at what point do you make the judgment he's over the line? if you're watching a political class that can't make up its own mind about these things. >> do you buy that, bill, that people would have jeopardized their core had they spoken up and said, this guy scares me. >> i blame jack bower for this, people have a view of-- >> a fictional character.

>> yes, the people think our guys are going to do whatever it takes and forget that they're government workers and respond to incentives and one thing about an army, it's a big bureaucracy and a lot of people behave as people working in a big burereaucracy. they know the incentives for getting ahead and in the absence, now, we all connect the dots and so forth, and in the absence of that you bring it up, it's going to be he's picked on and so forth and people are afraid. we have the same thing all the time. we say who connected the dots and we make it difficult for people to connect the dots. i want to move on to ksm. kalid shaikh mohammed coming to a new york court. stunning news, what's behind this, what's the administration thinking? >> they've sort of said this all along. how long have you been writing editorials on this and-- >> don't remind me. >> and people pay attention. and now they see president obama's speeches, hope and change and living up to our ideals and they see what it means in reality. and that's why it's stunning news, it's not surprising news.

>> no, not surprising. >> we knew it was coming, but it's stunning because people say, gee, this really has consequences when you take a law enforcement approach. this is what you're going to get and i think they're going to pay ahigh price for it. >> former attorney general mike mukasey wrote in our page, this is a mistake and probably knew this was coming and one of the reasons, it's hard to apply the rules of evidence of a criminal trial to what you can gather in the battlefield. i mean, we don't have kandahar csi dusting off for fingerprints in the battlefield. >> absolutely, and you have the rules of evidence and then you have the way again of all of the civil rights complainant about torture and the release of torture documents that initiate everything. however, this is the unspoken thing. this event, which believe me, no one should underestimate, is, as dan says, it's a huge event that we've just lived through. the pain of this. >> hasan.

>> hasan, is in everyone's heart and it's going to fill in all of the spaces. i think we ever are we're in for a bit of a surprise at the pushback of any efforts to in any way excull pate ksm in any way. >> could he, dorothy makes a good point about evidence, dan. >> of course, his attorneys are going to say. >> of course. >> of the evidence against him cannot be admitted because it was the product of torture. could he possibly be acquitted? >> i think he could. which the president of the united states has described as torture. what stronger witness could one ask for than that? and you know, ksm, everybody goes the master mind of 9/11, yes, he was not in the united states when he master minded this plot. it was a conspiracy, conspiracies are very difficult to prove, i think, we're in for a nightmare of bringing this guy into the criminal system here. >> and you remember what happened when they released

against all the wishes of the army and everyone else, concerned, all of that testimony about torture that they got and the president went marching into the cia to reassure them, all of this is coming together in a great big witches brew which i think the administration will pay for. >> dorothy one last word. when we come back nancy pelosi gets her health care bill with the help of some abortion fauxes in congress. yg;wwgkóçó37wcwówg'çówóçon

>> a last minute compromise to strip federal funds from insurance plans that cover abortions may have saved nancy pelosi's health care reform bill which passed the house in a late night vote last saturday. a deal negotiated by michigan democrat stupak and right to life gave 40 democrats coverage for support a larger bill. will it prove a lasting victory for the pro-life movement? the first test next week in the senate where harry reid plans to unveil his chamber's version of the health care bill. you wrote this week that you

thought it was a victory or dues me, a defeat for nancy pelosi. >> for one, nancy pelosi didn't want this amendment. gave it up at the end when she needed the votes. the criticism of it only makes sense if you believe that the republicans could have stopped the final vote and i believe as a republicans voted present to some people that defeated the amendment, apart from the issues of cynicism about the republican party, that would have freed up all the stupak members to go south and push the bill through. >> just at that political procedural level. don't you think it made her job easier because it gave some of those democrats the cover to say, go back to their constituents and say, i got this, i got it. >> it might have why didn't she give it until the 11th hour. >> she didn't, i have to agree with you. >> you have a civil war, if you look at political, the hill, all papers in washington abortion causing turmoil for harry reid now. i don't know whether it will stay in. i rather them having a civil war on the issue than our side having a civil war on the issue.

>> there's another aspect to this, it was brokered by the conference of catholic bishops. stupak had them in his office, he said to speaker pelosi i've got the people and you've got to talk to them. people think that the bishops are a single issue group, abortion, they're not. they've been-- >> in this case they seemed something like that. >> they have explicitly been in favor of universal health care for years. they have-- they are-- they support what pelosi is trying to achieve on that broader health care bill. and this was frosting on the cake for them. they literally explicitly enabled her to get it. >> but when you talk to the right to life issue, obviously, bill's concerned about prenatal life, okay? what about the end of life? if this bill leads to, as i suspects it will. i don't suspect, i believe it is rationing by the government of health care and at the end of the life and particularly, that means the aged and people sick, terminal cancer patients.

will they be able to get the new experimental drug, for example, terribly expensive. the government doesn't want to finance it and by the way only extend your life nine months or a year, so, sorry, ma'am, you don't get it. that's also a right to life issue. >> i agree with that. i don't have a problem with that. so many other people on the democratic side don't agree with that. i think what's happened. you have a block now very difficult to pelosi and if you read rahm emanuel had a meeting planned parenthood, the people are screaming at him. i'd rather have them screaming the at each other. i think this amendment has made it more difficult to get a final-- not on its own, but other things and as far as dan's points the bishops' view, i think this is what makes the bill minimally acceptable. i think they're split. more of for comprehensive coverage and coverage for illegals and so forth, but this was the minimum they were holding out. >> i tell you, dorothy, i think there's no way in the world that the left, the pro-abortion left is going to let this issue interfere in a way that kills

the health care bill. i think in the end they'll cave. notwithstanding all the to go and froing now. >> if they cave the amendment stays in. >> i'm sorry. >> if they cave the amendment stays in. >> and it creates much bigger problems in my view for the right to life movement. >> and creates huge cynicism on the passage of that particular exchange. should they present to the largest country a feeling that something underhanded has gone on here, something that may be betrayed and it feeds into resistance for the entire bill for the sense ever overall government manipulation, something is rotten here in every case, including in this exchange. >> and i would argue that rahm emanuel at the white house is probably smiling at the debate. if everybody is screaming about abortion, they're not focusing on the other part of the bill, it's going to break the federal budget and lead to rationing of federal car. >> you don't get the sense that

they're smiling. nancy pelosi didn't give this until the end, she realized caused a problem there. i think they've got a lot of complications on their hands and i think that people can disagree with the national right to life and they have-- this is had an amendment that stupak pursued for a long time that republicans asked for a vote on back in september. i mean, almost all of them. hard for them to oppose it. >> bill, last word. still ahead we've bailed out car companies, banks, pretty much all of wall street. are newspapers next? when we come back, a closer look at the call for the government to give our beleaguered industry a helping hand. sfx: coin drop, can shaking

your family has its own rhythm. and its own reasons to save money, save time and save for the future. whatever your reason, regions makes saving simpler. lifegreen checking and savings are a great way to start - featuring free convenient e-services, up to a $250 annual savings account bonus and a free personal savings review. so make the switch today - and get your family into the rhythm of saving. regions - it's time to expect more.

>> the government has given them the car companies, banks, pretty much all of wall street,

so, why not a bailout for newspapers? with so many on the brink of bankruptcy, that move may be closer than you think. just last week the state of new hampshire agreed to back a loan to one of its dailies pan several bills have already been introduced in congress, including a measure sponsored by maryland democrat ben carden that would allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks. back in september. president obama said he would quote, be happy to look at that bill and others. for more, we're joined by senior editorial page writer. colin, is this really an idea that's being taken seriously in political circles? >> well, i think it is being taken sort of seriously and you have to remember, paul, this is a incredibn incredible bargain newspapers. there was a report done by former washington post, and editor michael shuston, how the

government can help the press. what you're talking about here and what they're suggesting is that the only way for the press to maintain its independence is for it to basically surrender that independence in the form of government subsidy. >> one of the specific ideas they're talking about, i gather one of them is to have these subsidies, seed money, if you will, for local news reporting councils around the country. one of the concerns is local newspapers are having the business models blown up and losing that coverage. so we sprinkle government money to local cities. congress would love that. >> yeah, congress sure would and this is a disastrous idea, what you'd basically be doing, a national network of state funded reporters and that wouldn't be good for local reporting, it would also, you know, probably not be good for the circulation of local papers because local readers would start to find that

sort of coverage dubious. >> here is the idea, connell, they say that it would be nothing more than national endowment for the arts, subsidize a certain art and that isn't politicized at all. so what's the problem with reporters. >> come on, right. well, two things on that. obviously, i wouldn't say the national endowment for the arts is particularly shining example here. but the other issue is, you know, more seriously, the national endowment for the arts isn't directly passed with being a watch dog for government. and that's typically a different sort of relationship, that newspapers have. >> all right, dan, defense subsidies for the press, please. >> absolutely none. all right, look, here is the problem. the columbia review study talked about taking newspapers to nonprofit status, in fact, for at least the last 40 years most journalists on these papers think they've been engaged in some sort of nonprofit enterprise and see newspapers as a public trust, as a public good and that the money that

supported them sort of came from the tooth fairy out there. i really can't think about that stuff because i'm doing all the good things. >> not even profit-- >> from 1970 onwards the newspaper business was a business. in new york city you used to have seven or eight daily papers competing and fighting it out both for news and for profit. this would simply take newspapers into an area that would make them less competitive, less interesting, all the reasons why people have been fleeing them for financial reasons the past 15 years. >> i want to read a different point of view from the columbia journal review editorial, all right. government has always subsidized the press starting with legislation in 1792 that established a low cost mail rates for newspapers. over the years some subsidies worked well others less so. the idea that a purely commercial media alone could continue to deliver the journalism we need is being difficult to swallow. it if we don't get beyond the rational, but outdated fear of government help for accountability journalism, if we just let the market sort it out

this vital public goodwill continue to decline. dorothy? >> well, if you knew the number of times the word accountability was used in that particular argument, and what does accountability mean? it means the very important social issues and encouragement and the rest of it. the interesting thing is that this point of view divides the great populous of the united states, which is interested in reading about recipes, apparently, according to the journalism review, and interested in crossword puzzles without-- >> neither of those stories. >> without this kind of funding, we wouldn't have people reading the editorials and reports. this kind of snobbery behind this, the government should tell us. >> connell, what about this idea that the press has always been subsidized in some way, say mail routes or some ways by the government? >> well, the subzdyes come in very different forms and i think you have to look at what's happening now, you're actually seeing this week, we saw for the first time the state of new

hampshire guaranteed a loan worth about $200,000 to one of its local newspapers. so, you're now seeing a situation where you have a direct government handout to a newspaper. and i think that the kind of relationship that that creates between editors and reporters and the local politicians they cover, you know, is a lot kosovoikosovo i cozier. >> they're not wholly owned subsidiaries of the oonc. wll tblarnc. orvefse em ds tigin

>> time for our hits and misses of the week. dan, first to you. >> this week, a jury acquitted two bear-stearns attorneys, accused of sending e-mails trading practices, the prosecutor said this amounted to felony crimes because they didn't share with their customers. a jury of normal people said, whoa, wait a minute whatever else is going on here, this didn't rise to the level of a crime. this is a significant case that pushes back and the prosecutor's impulse these days to find new ways criminalize normal business behavior. a very, very big deal. >> dorothy, a hit on muggers who gave is pass to army reservists. >> m milwaukee they ran into a punch of muggers who probably i should say go to prison, but

when they discovered, because they had them on the ground enraged he had no money they went through and found his military card and that was the end of it, we can't touch this guy and this was wonderful. shook his hand thanked him for service and reminds one of the times that we have always embraced this idea that your country is more important than anything and the-- >> thank you, dorothy. >> colin. >> well, paul, a miss to harvard which this week invited this great performer, new york governor eliot spitzer to give a lecture a the ethics department and this was such an egregious invitation it prompted a letter from the former madam pro cured escorts she'd love to attend, but couldn't break the terms of her probation, this was a pretty horrible thing and obviously should not be held up as anyone's moral exemplar. >> harvard strikes again. if you have your own hit or miss, send them to us.

that's it for this week's edition journal editorial report. thanks for watching, i'm paul gigot, we hope to see you here . >> on fox news watch, a crazed killer guns down 13 people and an unborn baby, who knew about the potential threat? . media steers clear of his connections. why are they scared. the announcement creates shock waves, how has the press reacted. the white house's anti-fox news architect anita dunn calls it quit earlier than expected. did her flawed agenda hasten the move? unemployment above 10%, a sour economy, no decision on troops in afghanistan. the president flies off to asia. is the press paying attention? a cable news veteran says adios

to cnn. did the network cave to outside pressure. today, a look at reporters who tell their stories. >> on the panel this week, writer and fox news contributor miller. syndicated columnist cal thomas, jim pinkerton fell no new american foundation and keir-- kirsten, i'm jon scott. >> breaking news coming to us from killeen, texas, officials at fort hood army base say seven people are dead and 12 wounded in what appears to be a man shooting at the facility. our tim golan on the national news desk is work on the story. >> fox news coverage of the fort hood massacre last week, details about the suspect were quick to surface, most in the the media were hesitant to link major

nidal malik hasan, a poll asked how they felt about the murders at fort hood. should it be investigating my military authorities has a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act? 60% said military authorities should investigate it as a terrorist act. 27% thought it should be investigated as a criminal act. 13% not sure. the culture and media institute noticed something about the news coverage, until president obama spoke on tuesday at a memorial service for the fort hood victims of the attacks, 14 news mentioned he hasan was a muslim. 93% had no mention. after what the president called extremist islamic views, 85 percent of stories on broadcast networks did not mention the

word terror, abc, cbs nbc evening in ours referenced terrorist connections to the fort hood attack just seven times in 48 reports. cal are, you wrote about this this week. was there a hesitancy on the part of the network, on the part of the media to call this terrorism? >> without question. every time i wrote on the the subject i get a slew of mail, my syndicate gets a slew of mail, calling me a bigot and islam-foeb. back in the 1980's when the so-called religious right, the conservative christians came up in the political system, the media sent cameras to the churches, they stereo typed little old ladies and men driving pickup trucks and labeled them ultra right extreme right, fundamentalist. they didn't care about labeling them. no hands off. no cameras in the mosques, no labelists of islamic extremists beyond that word. a double standard. >> judy, you say the left and

right are getting this story wrong, what do you mean? >> basically you have the phenomenon that cal is talking about on the part of the psycho babble that really substitutes for reporting and no mention of terror, but on the right you have another phenomenon which is this insidious slide from major hasan as a muslim into criticizing and fears about islam as a religion, and i think we had to be-- we saw a little of that, enough of that in the media to be very concerned this week. >> well, and jim, there are some in the media who make this guy a victim. >> like hair i-- harry smith on cbs one of hundreds of reporters who said it's stress, pts-- and they take their cues from obama. obama said at fort hood it's quote incomprehensible what

happened. >> well, george newmeyer at spectator says it's come henceable. the guy was getting ideas and not orders from some killer in yemen. >> there are reports that he was harassed on the job because of his muslim faith. now, you know, again, i have a son at west point. my experience with the military is if you're not doing well at your job, you're going to get harassed and that seems to be the case here. but why, why has the media been, i guess, dancing around the islam issue? >> well, i felt they were issuely dancing around it and i actually would applaud the media the way they reacted to it with more restraint and not jumping to conclusions when it first came out whereas i had a lot of friends on the right e-mailing me and saying when you go on air make sure you say this is a terrorist attack and it's like, let's wait and get all the information and as we've got ten more information i think you can start to put together a case. look, the initial information he'd been killed. the initial information was that

he was killed by this woman who turns out didn't kill him. a lot of misinformation and i think it's better to show restraint until you have actual information which we now have about the connections and then make a judgment. >> i agree with that to a point, but there were several hosts including shepard smith who's quite-- very good on this network who said on the air we know the man's name, but we're going to withhold it for basically reasons not only to ourselves, we know the reason because it is arab sounding, it's muslim sounding and nobody wanted to be the first to put that out there. that's the kind of restraint that we're seeing on this. restraint is a good thing, as kirsten says when you don't have the facts. we remember after reagan was shot, people reporting that jim brady was dead when he wasn't dead. that restraint is good, but when you've got the facts put them out there. >> on the first day we knew that he had yelled, god is great as he gunned down people. that automatically says something about his-- >> and also, he could have just as easily been a crazy lunatic

who snapped. >> yes. but claiming that dn-- >> just having a muslim name is not enough. >> it could have easily been except for the fact he was saying allah-- >> you can be a crazy lunatic and yell it. >> and not be an islamic terror. >> that's true, that's true. >> another story involving islamic terror this week that played headlines, attorney general eric holder held a press conference on friday explaining his decision to bring kalid shaikh mohammed and four other 9/11 attackers to new york city for trial in a civilian federal court. here is some of what the attorney general had to say. >> after eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of september the 11th will finally face justice. they will be be brought to new york, to new york, to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood. i am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these

defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. the alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long established rules and procedures. >> he also said he he was confident that he can get a conviction. judy, i don't know, i was surprised franksly that he took questions after this thing the press are skeptical. >> i think you're going to see the skepticism build over time. here in new york i don't have the ability of a new york jury to convict this man. we've done this trial before. this argument will ultimately prevail and people will calm down if the media don't turn it into a political-- >> kind of a large "if" there, a leading analyst, namely mean wrote for politico on friday, this is a magnet for lawyers and show boaters, not to mention terrorists, this is going to be the biggest disaster this

country has seen and that's saying something. >> this trial ought to be held at the bronx zoo. what it's going to be from a media perspective. they're going to be interviewing every kind of crazy and in terms of a fair trial. you have to be tried by a jury of his peers, his peers include muslims, are they going to exclude them from the jury? only takes one for a hung jury or a mistrial. >> i sense a discussion here. go to foxnews.com/fox news watch. we're back in two minutes to cover the president's overseas journey and an exodus from the white house. >> she led the white house attack on fox news. >> let's not pretend they're a news network the way cnn is. >> now she's leaving her high level post earlier than expected. did her flawed effort force the decision? >> and unemployment up, economy down and the president flies away to asia. has the press noticed?

answers next on news watch. man: alice loves the smell of gain so much, she wished they came in a fabric softener too. man: (cough) say hello to your fairy godmother, alice. man: (on p.a.) line one, please. gain detergent and fabric softener.

>> the reality is fox news operates almost as almost the research arm or communications arm of the republican party of the when they want to treat us like they treat everybody else, let's not pretend they're a news network like cnn is. >> white house director anita dunn.

her harsh words roundly criticized by her news coverageses and then a perceived warming by the white house, senior advisor david axlerod gave an interview to our white house chief correspondent major garrett and this week the news that dunn is going to be leaving her post earlier than planned. she was always expected to leave by the end of the year, but called it quits a month earlier. was she outfoxed by her own strategy decision? >> put it this way i worked in two white houses and standard text is to say i'm leaving next year sometime. if they don't want you to stay they let you go and if they say please stay, then you look all the more powerful because they begged you to stick around and they seem perfectly happy to see her leave early and i think that it might have something to do with the npr poll, a survey on npr website 7 to 1 margin national public radio listeners thought she made a mistake and obama white house-- in pr terms. >> and said you've never had a

problem appearing on fox news as a democrat. was the white house embarrassed by what she-- >> my understanding they're not at all embarrassed and that she was always going to leave at the end of the year and she has a 13-year-old son and her husband was just appointed to take over for gray craig which was in the paper today i saw was leaving. it makes sense you're not going to have two parents working in the 0s white house and was leaving at the end of the year anyway, i don't think it's anything to do with the fox news thing. >> compare and contrast, when anita dunn said mao of say tongue-- >> you would have done a laugh in the middle of it. >> no dubbing on the mainstream media when george w. bush said in the year 2000 jesus was his favorite philosopher, the media weighed in with editorials and criticism, and laughter. >> i think that anita dunn is out for attacks on fox news is

naive. this attack was approved at a higher level and planning to leave anyway and this is very, very convenient, it's a way of saying, okay, we tried something, it didn't work, it back fired, now, anita, who was going to leave anyway, leaves a little earlier. i agree with-- >> does it make it look like she's falling on her sword. >> well, if you want it to look that way, as the administration may very well want to. an impression they may want to create now. >> like world war ii, they were expendable. >> does it suggest that somebody got wise and realize trying to battle fox news is maybe not a smart choice so they're going to bury that strategy by letting her-- >> yeah, but she's not being pushed out. >> exactly. >> those two things could be true, but i think it may have worked in a certain way for them and then it ran its course, you know, that they wanted to kind of gin up the liberal bases and done with it. >> it doesn't work in a certain

way. >> but she has nothing, as you said she was executing a strategy that was coming from higher up. >> all right. >> time for another break, we will be back to talk about unemployment, the economy, and whether or not the press is noticing. noticing. >> we went from, yes we can. to is anything working? we all know that there are limits to what government can and should do, even such difficult times. >> with record setting unemployment. and zero job growth, where is the president going? and is the press on board? plus, a cable news veteran calls it quits. did that network buckle to pressure from the left? details next on news watch.

>> president obama announcing his jobs summit for next month, this news on the same day we learned half a million new jobless claims were filed last week. but before the press could react shall the president hopped on a plane for yet another overseas trip. why do you suppose, cal? >> he's visiting our creditors, they hold out debt. surely getting out of town is always good policy for a president, republican or democrat when things are going bad. i'm amazed how the media responded unemployment 10.2% naturally 15% in michigan and growing and higher in other places and virtually no stories criticizing the policy. now, with gasoline under the bush administration was $4 a gallon the media went out of the way to get the people who were struggling and hurting and it was all bush's fault. we don't see that yet. >> why not, kirsten. >> i don't remember it being bush's fault the gas prices. >> oh, sure. >> i mean, i think that actually how-- i mean, i've seen coverage of

the unemployment numbers, how many different ways can you tell that story? the numbers are the numbers and they, you know, they can talk about families that are hurting, but i don't know what more they're supposed to be saying. >> but why isn't the constant travel a story? why isn't the fact that the man is never seen an airplane he doesn't want to get on to or a speech he doesn't want to give a story? where is the media skepticism that we're supposed to be expecting from all of us? where is it? >> you worked in the white house, jim, isn't it the case that when you've got problems at home you hop on a plane. >> that's totally true although in the reagan years when unemployment went to 10% they managed to find an angle every day. cbs news had a special, "people like us" people suffering hour after hour. i'll say this, when he goes overseas you've got to mark him as well, mark finkle steen the first to catch it at news busters that obama wouldn't answer a question do you think

that the bombing of hiroshima by president roosevelt ended world war ii and he dodged the question. this is huge not only for president truman's legacy and our nuclear, which obama didn't think much about. >> we got the announcement from the president about the jobs summit and immediately hopped on a plane. is that, i don't know, the presidential way of saying we've got you covered, but now i'm going to leave for nine or ten days. >> no, i think he's got business overseas and in this day and age, it doesn't matter where you are. he can still be focused on the u.s. economy. air force one is a travelling office wherever he is, you know, anyone who's worked in the white house knows turns into wherever you are, a little mini white house and you can do your business there. i mean, he can be just as focused there as here, i don't-- >> here is something that caught us off guard this week, cnn anchor lou dobbs with a big announcement wednesday night. >> this will be my last

broadcast here on cnn where i've worked for most of the past 30 years, and where i have many friends and colleagues whom i admire deeply and respect greatly. i'm the last of the original anchors on cnn and had the privilege of helping to build the world's first news network. >> dobbs has been vague about what his future plans are, but media matters, other groups have been calling, have been claiming a victory with this announcement, media matters, liberally oriented group. was he pushed out, judy? >> the new york times virtually suggested he was. he says that he talked about his desire to move on to bigger and greater things, there have been all kinds of announcements whether or not he's here. and truth in advertising, when i was in jail, lou dobbs was one of the few broadcasters every night ran a clock with another day that a journalist was in jail so i'm kind of sympathetic to him even though i did not like his views on immigration,

illegal immigration and i think that that issue, of whether or not he was pushed out because of left wing media campaign, is something that the press ought to look at. >> we should say this on judy's behalf she was in jail for sticking up for the first amendment. >> thank you (laughter) >> right. >> but that is worth noting. there, you know, when he started at cnn, it was supposedly the news was the star and not the personalities, and has that changed? >> well, it would make sense, i think cnn would be well within their rights of getting rid of him and even if liberal groups are complaining. as much as they complain it's straight down the middle we know who their audience is, it's liberals and why wouldn't they get rid of lou dobbs. >> men, women in the military and reporters who cover them. >> america honors our men and women around the world and news

woch honor the reporters who i'm robert shapiro. over a million people have discovered how easy it is to use legalzoom for important legal documents. so start your business, protect your family, launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

thaveaycitct your family, launch your dreams. y t od tha nty wact your family, branmech your dreams. faf aiz leh ii grnt faf aiz ked kalm leh ii eas sh dcaro,t faf aiz ep wutbyd oll ked kalm f f aiz faf aiz ep wutbyd oll ked brthme f f aiz we celebrated veterans' day this week honoring those that served and our troops are still in uniform. where our troops go so do reporters taking risks to bring the stories home. recognizable faces and some not so. now a report from baghdad.

>> tens of thousands of u.s. troops have spent years in iraq and afghanistan, in both cases fighting the enemy and help. i have spent time in iraq trying to cover the soldier's story. in 2006 and 2007 as iraq suffered through hundreds of bombings and thousands of sectarian murders, our reporting felt like a risk in between the carnage and destruction, crucial to see what was being done to stop it. >> at fox we made the decision to leave our baghdad as much as possible to embed with troops to find out what they were doing. many journalists will remember this as the embed role to beside by side with soldiers.

we have faced some of the dangers. in mosul when a suicide bomb are struck and fleigd a military convoy when a roadside bomb exploded killing a farmer in eastern baghdad. embedding has allowed us to document the war from the first days of the mission and less glamorous task of training a new iraqi army and meetings with tribal leaders. we've gone everywhere with the troops, into a factory to a dusty market in the desert. >> the down side to embedding, reporters need to work harder to stay objective when they are living with the soldiers. and it tends to give you a snapshot of one area. >> that is why it's important to talk with commanders to get a sense of the larger picture and it's critical to hear from iraqi